ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on individual interpreters’ responsibility and ethical choices in connection with war crimes. Drawing on the cases of accused interpreters at British military trials against the Japanese, two scenarios are examined: One is interpreters’ physically participating in the ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees on the orders of superiors, and the other is interpreters’ providing linguistic mediation, without any physical engagement, in an unlawful act committed by others. References are made to the cases of contract civilian interpreters in contemporary conflict zones as well. Some legal aspects of interpreters being held criminally liable for war crimes are reviewed, including the ineffectiveness of the superior orders defence, and modes of liability such as Joint Criminal Enterprise and aiding and abetting. As for individual interpreters’ ethical choices, codes of ethics for professional interpreters do not carry much weight for embedded interpreters in war. Whether conscripted or contracted, civilian interpreters’ actions and choices are likely to be ruled by military doctrine or aligned with those of soldiers. They are not expected to be neutral, but interpreters may use the notion of interpreter neutrality to shield themselves from ethical reflection on the immediate consequences of their work, such as interpreting in interrogatory torture.
